Simmering Boro supporters will rightly feel a deep sense of injustice over the Premier League's two-faced judgment on West Ham.

The decision by league chiefs NOT to dock points from the Hammers after they were caught bang to rights using ineligible players, and then lied about it, is a kick in the teeth for Boro fans.

It has picked off the scab on a wound to the heart that still hurts after a decade.

The Hammers knew but did not reveal to the authorities that Argentinian duo Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano had not been correctly signed when they arrived in August.

They had been loaned to the club by investment group MSI who owned their previous club River Plate and were trying to buy Upton Park - and who, crucially, retained the pair's registration.

And once questions were raised about the "third party" ownership - which is against the rules - West Ham concealed the truth.

Fielding ineligible players brings a three-point deduction per game throughout the English pyramid system almost without exception.

And a points deduction is the penalty considered appropriate in the Premier League's own rule book - which, as all Boro fans know, was once considered sacrosanct.

"The Rules of the FAPL allow us to penalise a club by deducting points and that is a course that we consider would normally follow from such a breach of these rules," said the panel's report.

Yet such a punishment was set aside because - get this! - it was considered to have too great an affect on the relegation battle and was unduly harsh on the loyal fans.

"If the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points," the judgment said.

"The fans and the players have been fighting against relegation against the ever-present threat ... the efforts and loyalty would be to no avail were we to now deduct points."

Right. So poor West Ham don't get punished because it may see them pushed back down through the trapdoor and it wouldn't do to have those chirpy Cockernees upset?

But it was "right and fair" for Boro to be cast into the abyss despite amassing enough points to finish 14th in 1997?

Back then Boro were hit with a draconian three-point deduction in January that directly contributed to a costly relegation and the subsequent loss of brilliant players like Juninho and Ravanelli and a year's top-flight income.

There was no concern back then about the distorting impact on the survival battle or on the distress to fans.

Worse, the commission admitted the main reason it did not dock West Ham points was because of the timing and the impact it would have on the table at this late stage.

"A points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome, would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which would have consigned the club to certain relegation," they said.

That raises two points. The first is that matter could and should have been pursued in January had it not been for West Ham's evasion in dealing with the league's requests to see the documentation on the deal.

It also raises major question marks over the logic of the punishment.

In saying they cannot wield the ultimate sanction because of the proximity of the relegation battle but may have considered it if West Ham were not still involved, the Premier League appear to suggest they would only dock points if such a punishment had no effect.

That is perverse, invites teams to break the law knowing they will only be punished if it won't hurt them, and is a breach of natural justice.

The judgment will reinforce the growing impression that the football authorities have an arbitrary notion of what constitutes justice and see it as relative to the perceived status of the offender.

There is a glaring contradiction that suggests justice has not been seen to be done in an even-handed way.

And it will inflame passions on Teesside, where it is still widely believed Boro were given a raw deal.

Lest we forget, Boro's transgressions came when an injury and virus-ravaged team failed to fulfil a fixture at Blackburn on December 19.

Keith Lamb had informed the league of Boro's 23-man sick list and was told there was provision in the rules to call a game off if they could show "just cause" - so they did and then set about proving they had reason to do so.

Boro's "just cause" was rejected by the panel and at an appeal for which they signed on George Carmen QC, who until then had reportedly never lost a case.

But Boro held their hands up to what they had done - indeed, gave the league notice of what they planned - and throughout proceedings they were transparent.

The disciplinary panel accepted the club "acted in good faith". Yet they were hammered.

In contrast, this time around the Premier League panel concluded West Ham had been "responsible for dishonesty and deceit".

In Boro's case there was no chicanery, no attempt to circumvent the rules and no attempt to gain a long-term advantage over their rivals.

But West Ham broke the rules and lied about it in order to field players they could not afford week-in, week-out.

Mascherano hasn't set the world alight but the consensus of press, pundits and Hammers fans alike has been that Tevez has almost single-handedly kept them within reach of safety with his displays since the New Year.

So West Ham could survive thanks to a player who they have broken the rules to buy and covered up the evidence - but the Premier League considers that a lesser crime than calling off an easily rescheduled match because the team has been ravaged by flu.

What will hurt Teessiders not yet hardened to injustice even more is that the "ineligible" player scored against Boro - who are not yet safe - in what could yet be a decisive 2-0 Hammers win last month.

And that having now been allowed to sign the correct paperwork - after the transfer deadline - he could yet get the goals that keep West Ham up.

Those of a more nervous "typical Boro" disposition will be now convinced that such survival will be at our expense.